To want to work but cant because of crippling childcare cant I have a life?

[mummycanthavealife]

Really want to work but kids under 5. my dp works long hours so never sure when he will be home, I was offered a job but had to turn it down because my hourly rate would of paid for my two children to be looked after so turned it down.
I really want to work give my kids a better quality of life but what is the point should I wait till my children are at school advice greatly appreciated,dont think im entitled to any help either,thanks mn.

So actually (this is my last post on the subject I promise) under my scenario (1) the main cause of the increased income would be DH and I both benefiting from our personal tax allowances.

I actually don't care that much having thought it over. There is no way we would plan our lives around how much tax we pay or how much money we could get back off the Government - especially as things can change at the drop of a hat. I reckon some people must do just that though - negotiating the benefits system looks like a full time occupation as far as I can tell! God forbid we're ever forced down that road.

ChippingIn - it was good to chat with you last night, but I can't agree with you over people just being able to choose or not to have a high paying job. The question should surely be why very very worthwhile jobs (usually in the public sector), which require excellent qualifications, are so badly paid that people need help to subsidise childcare costs.

eatsushi - no, of course not everyone chooses their job but there are a lot of people who choose job satisfaction over earning potential. I am a single parent and while I would love to do something a bit more interesting/worthwhile/delete as applicable, I am the sole breadwinner in our house and so that simply isn't an option. So I do my dull but well-paid job.

I appreciate that not everyone is in my position but a lot of women do not choose to do very much with their university education because they get married and earning money isn't a priority. I'm not saying that's wrong but it's a lifestyle choice and I think that if you want to have children, you need to accept that there are going to have to be some trade offs down the line.

Why are some jobs like cleaning and nursing not paid as high as surgeons? Because it's much easier to do them and fewer people have the IQ or are prepared to pass the medical exams etc. Juts as some people are so naturally talented at sports or music they do well. Life is like that. The secret as a teenage girl as many of us did is pick a job you adore and keeps you well. Obviously most people are mediocre and the average IQ is only 100 so there will always be plenty of people to do the jobs no one much wants to do and anyone can manage but pick instead sometyhing you can earn over £100k at and these threads about will I earn more than I pay a childminder melt away. Work smart not hard.

Arguably many very highly paid jobs demand very little in the way of IQ or qualifications Xenia. And of course people don't choose their IQ. Although of course if those of limited intelligence were prevented from having children because they couldn't afford them, then that particular problem would resolve itself.

Which job requires better qualifications and IQ - highly paid "management consultant" or poorly paid research scientist with 3 degrees to their name? I wonder.

Xenia - I absolutely knew that your advice would be to get a better paid job

But here's the thing - many people don't earn that much. The average full-time salary is around £25k. You would struggle to afford childcare on that sort of income. Therefore the average woman is going to struggle to afford to work. And all the below-average (in terms of income) are simply not going to be able to work.

Not every woman can earn enough money to be able to afford the childcare.

I agree with you about career planning, and careful forethought but nevertheless professional careers are simply not open to everyone. And some people choose to undertake roles in public service etc because they have vocations etc. Should they all have to give up work upon having children? Absolutely not.

We do need to find a better solution. One that doesn't make work an option only for the better paid.

Their children could be cared for for no charge by mothers or fathers on benefits who would be obliged to work say 5 hours a day doing that. That would not cost anything.

"Their children could be cared for for no charge by mothers or fathers on benefits who would be obliged to work say 5 hours a day doing that. That would not cost anything."

I am not leaving my Dcs with conscripted childminders. Are you insane?

Over my dead body! After all these years Xenia, I stil think you are on one big wind-up trip.

No she is very real but, to be fair to Xenia, she has left her Dcs with highly paid, motivated, qualified nannies.

I wouldn't leave my children with any long-term unemployed, and on that basis, nor would I ask anyone else to. It's ridiculous.

Oh I don't doubt she's real, I just doubt that some of her opinions are really her own. Anyhow Xenia, you are a classic example of yah boo sucks to anyone less fortunate than yourself.

Incidentally, most of us already have children being looked after by people earning very little more than they would on benefits.

I would say, however, that for many people £25k must be ample money to allow them to afford childcare and work. On that income you're talking a career so there are many other benefits to be had from continuing to work, not just the financial aspect. I earn less than that and (thankfully) would not have to give up work should anything, God forbid, happen to DH (who currently looks after DS most of the time). It depends on where you live of course, but particularly if there's a second earner I can't see why there would be a problem really.

As I said earlier I think the problem really lies with part time work and that stupidly arbitrary 16 hour barrier between being able to take a job or not.

xenia - you're an intelligent woman, so how on earth did you come to the conclusion that these threads would "melt away" if teenage girls all decided to try for highly paid careers? are we, as a society, suddenly going to stop needing cleaners/nurses/social workers/highly qualified people who work in the charity sector, or, are we suddenly going to close the gap between the highly paid and lowest paid? because unless one of these things happen these threads won't disappear(and I can't see how teenage aspirations could possibly bring about either of these things).

Most teenage girls are not going to be successful lawyers. Even if they wanted to be.

Right, now back to practical solutions. What about some decent affordable childcare for all? Subsidised by axing the royal family, unnecessary wars and slashing MPs expenses?

"....are we, as a society, suddenly going to stop needing cleaners/nurses/social workers/highly qualified people who work in the charity sector,"

In Xenia World that can all be done by the unemployed everyone else will have to be an accountant, lawyer or surgeon.

xenia enlist the crims to talk to lawyers about morality

Violethill - If you are going to make a statement like that, would you like to back it up with a couple of examples? I appreciate that you yourself have made a decision to earn less money than you could have, to do a job you find more fulfilling and you have earned next to nothing at times to get where you are, this is the point I have been making in many of my posts - you made a choice to earn less, you made a choice to have children and you worked out how you could afford to do this without relying on taxpayers handouts and this is how it should be. I was not knocking you at all.

[By eatsushi Sat 03-Apr-10 22:07:03
chippingin - I am trying to understand your statement "You could have chosen to work in a better paying job." What kind of statement is that? The roles and jobs and rates of pay are not simply about choice.
For example - there is still a wage gap between what men and women earn, do you think women just choose to earn less.

Also are you aware of the rates of unemployment?]

You could have chosen to work in a better paying job. - Sorry, but what is so hard to understand about that statement? Some people choose not to do futher education, some people choose not to take jobs that challenge them, some people choose not to take jobs which educate them 'on the job'. Very few people have no choice about the study they do or the job they take.

Of course there should be pay parity - that goes without saying, but that is for another thread.

I have NEVER said that people who find themselves in a crap situation due to redundancy or things such as the recession should not be entitled to any help.

Gaelicsheep - yes, it was nice talking to you last night, it would be much easier to do it in person and I am sure there would be far fewer misinterpretations of intent too It's not that I think everyone can choose to be a 'highly paid professional', but some people just do not even try to do better for themselves and just expect the tax payer to foot the bill. I agree that a lot of very worthy jobs should be paid better than they are and to me, that would be a better use of tmp. Which jobs that require good qualifications, would you say, should be better paid and how should that be achieved? Your post at 23.49 is exactly what I have been saying - I think we agree more than we disagree

Ladybiscuit 23.09 - you put it so well and in so few words!!

As for Xenia - she does make some good points, she also makes some fucking barking not so good ones? (Who is their right mind would leave there kids with some 'compulsory childminder' ??).

I earn more than enough to cover childcare.

I nonetheless think it is too expensive in this country (not for me) but for the many women who find themselves in Annie's position who do a very valuable but not as highly paid job but still find themselves unable to afford childcare.

In the UK, people like ChippingIn seem to accept unquestioning that it is normal for childcare costs to be pegged at that high level and feel it within their right to berate women for choosing low paid jobs.

The fact is, even women in executive or professional or mid-level public sector jobs find it difficult to afford childcare. This cuts across large swathes of society to an extent that is unacceptable in another country.

I have a lot of sympathy for Annie's and others' view that childcare should be subsidised to a higher degree than it currently is. It is criminal for women to have to drop out of work for 5 years or more (if they have more than one dc) until their children are schoolage and find they are de-skilled from their qualified jobs and can only get back into entry level or low wage jobs.

What a waste of their talent and tax stream for decades in the future.

It makes perfect sense for a society to subsidise childcare. Many other countries do it for this reason.

I don't think the arbitrary CTC/WTC system is the way to do it.

I have always advocated for childcare costs to be fully tax-deductible. I am also fine for (state) childcare to be means-tested and priority to be given to working parents. Rather than the current surestart grant which does not distinguish between those who can or cannot afford or SAHPs or sole parents or 2 WOHPs.

I wonder if perhaps Xenia is suggesting that thick/lazy/unmotivated thickies who fail their exams should be banned from breeding. Only female surgeons or barristers need apply for children.

The aforementioned "thickos" could perhaps process her Ocado delivery and their "thick" husbands could maybe deliver it.

When my DCs's were small I worked in the operating theatre as a ward clerk at our local hospital.

DH arrived home from work at 4.15 and I left for work at 5.00pm. I worked a four hour shift Monday to Friday.

Pay was pretty good as I received penalty rates.

I got to spend all day with DC's, did the usual playgroup,coffee mornings etc.

The thing is that this wasn't the profession I was trained for but I was willing to do this to provide the best outcome for my DC.

Back then it seemed that paying for quality childcare was last priority on everyone's list.

Huge houses, slabs of beer, cigarettes were paid for without a blink of an eye, but ask people to pay for childcare and they started screaming for government assistance.

It seems as though nothing has changed.

I even saw an interview with a lady the other day saying that she felt that childrens' swimming lessons should be subsidised by the Government.

I've never understood why you get 15 hours free childcare once a child turns three, it seems bizarrely arbitrary. It clearly is related to education rather than helping both parents in a family continue in their career.

coralanne - I agree with you to an extent.

I remember other mums complaining about the cost of the after school club when my kids were at primary school. It was literally about £2.50 per child per hour. Really excellent value. And these were school age children, so we're not talking about all day every day, we're talking about paying for childcare between 3.30 pm and 5 pm. The interesting thing was that the people who complained tended to be those who had never worked when their children were pre-school age, or had used relatives for free childcare. Yet they bellyached about paying a few quid. (The after school club was very popular with the kids, so their children were asking to go, rather than be picked up by granny!) And often, the same mothers would think nothing of spending a few quid on a packet of fags. Some people's priorities amaze me.

Here's a simple way to improve childcare options

makie it so leases can't bar people from worlking on the rented premises: we are in our house but I would adore being a CM and the ASD boys are out of teh house in the schoolday, and Dh about to sepaarte them in the hols atm.

I would adore ebing a CM actually and would suit it.

What I find hard to understand about your statement that you could simply chose to work in a better paying job was your emphasis on choice.

The literature on achievement consistently has shown that parent education is very important in predicting children?s achievement. It is not that simple.

Some women find that the costs of childcare eat up most of their salary, negating the financial benefits of having a job. Mothers can also expect to find their long-term earning potential diminished by the time they take for parenthood.

Alvin Hall quotes studies that show that the average woman who has children in her early 20's and then stops work until they start school will cut her lifetime salary by about HALF.

On the other hand if you can afford to take only 26 weeks' leave then you will just knock of approx. 5 percent off your lifetime earnings.

It is estimated that it costs about £106K to raise a child to the age of 18 - and much more if you want to provide your child with private education.

I can't understand people who won't support more focus on childcare - it will allow more women to earn more, meaning they pay tax, it will help society in the long run.

Children are not commodities they are the future.

and oops - my post was in response to chippinin

It is true to an extent that lifetime choices made at 16 can really benefit you if you are wise

but many people are not at 16 and that is not necessarily theirt fault: it is an age at which people seem to vary between still a child and mature adult.

I worked ahrd to get into my chosen career (nursing)- just as the entire system including changed and I became totally unsuited to that career: I did not want to be a apperwork person and at that stage the whole thing was in flux )[art pf p2k for those who knew it), far less that 50% of my coursde completed it, including mew- I have heard rumours the srop out was 80%,

Dh too chose a career that ahs since imploded (him haulage, massive buy outs and relocations in our area to palces we cannot move to): we are both retraining but having to start from the bottom again.

Absolutely kids should be encouraged to make wise choices at 16 but to think those choices even when sensibly taken are guarantees is nonsense.